2018Gohap35,98 (Joint) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

(B) the regulation of fraud, fraud, and act of fund-raising;

Violation of Korean law

nan

Red iron (prosecutions) and static (Public Trial)

nan

August 17, 2018

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for ten years.

Facts of crime

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

The defendant around January 6, 2017 Cheongju-si** Gu** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * upon investment in the purchase cost of gold, he/she will purchase gold at the lowest price during the oil period and sell gold at the highest price again during the short period of time and then deliver proceeds from the market price profits within one month. The principal can be sold with gold accident, such as the shares guaranteed by the State. It does not mean that there is no loss since the principal can be sold with gold accident.

However, since the price of the gold has been repeated due to unexpected factors, such as market conditions, etc., it is clear whether a continuous profit will accrue even if the amount received from the victim is invested in the gold. In fact, even if the defendant receives the money under the pretext of investing in the gold from the victim, he thought that most of the money is paid to other investors as a profit, and thus, he did not have the intent or ability to pay the proceeds normally to the victim due to the price gains which guarantee the principal of the investment or have traded the gold.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, received KRW 1,034, 150,000 in total as investment money from the victim from December 22, 2017, such as by deceiving the victim as above and receiving KRW 122,50,000 in total as investment money from the victim from the time of receiving KRW 1,034, 150,00 in the same day as investment money. From November 2, 2015 to January 2, 2018, the Defendant received KRW 9,520,550 in the above manner as an aggregate of investment money from the victim 9 to January 2, 2018, as set forth in paragraphs (1) through (9) of the attached Table of Crimes (1) in the same manner.

2. Fraud;

(a) Investment fraud;

Around May 10, 2016, the Defendant provided the victim lecture at the above-mentioned location* “hinging down the gold price.” The Defendant would pay 8,000 won (8,000 won (e.g., the gold) to the Defendant and guarantee the principal.

However, since the price of the gold has been repeated due to unexpected factors, such as market conditions, etc., it is clear whether a continuous profit will accrue even if the amount received from the victim is invested in the gold. In fact, even if the defendant receives the money under the pretext of investing in the gold from the victim, he thought that most of the money is paid to other investors as a profit, and thus, he did not have the intent or ability to pay the proceeds normally to the victim due to the price gains which guarantee the principal of the investment or have traded the gold.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, received KRW 342,60,000 in total from the time when he/she had the victim inducedd the victim and received KRW 54,60,00 in the name of investment in the same day from January 13, 2017 to January 13, 2017, and received KRW 11,205,286,00 in the attached Table (10 to January 4, 2018) to the victim from around B, 2013 to January 4, 2018.

(b) Borrowing;

Around June 15, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at the same place as above, the Victim Kim ** was lacking money in order to purchase the gold; (b) upon lending money, the Defendant would pay interest of KRW 1 million per month; and (c) the principal would be repaid at any time.

However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, it was thought that it would be paid as a profit to the investors who invested in the gold. As above, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to make a normal repayment even if he borrowed money from the victim because there was an urgent situation in which the investor’s investment principal was paid as a profit to other investors.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, received a total of KRW 175,00,000 from the victim three times under the same name until December 19, 2017, such as deceiving the victim as above and receiving KRW 50,000,000 from the victim as the borrowed money on the same day, and received KRW 807,000,000 from the victim from June 15, 2016 to December 29, 2017, as shown in the attached list of crimes (2).

3. Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission.

No person shall engage in a business of raising funds from many and unspecified persons without obtaining authorization or permission, making registration or report, etc. under other Acts and subordinate statutes, and without delay, such as receiving contributions, by promising to pay the total amount of contributions or an amount in excess thereof in the future.

Nevertheless, the Defendant received a total of KRW 1,034, 150,000 as a sum of KRW 1,034, 150, and 00 from B to January 4, 2018, as shown in the crime list (1) as shown in attached Table 20, 725, 836, and 00, from a total of 666 persons under the name of capital contribution, by stating that he/she would purchase gold to Yellowhee and pay a certain amount of earnings, such as paragraph (1) at the same time and place as in paragraph (1).

Accordingly, the Defendant did not obtain authorization or permission under other Acts and subordinate statutes as above or registered.

Without making a report, the fund-raising business was conducted without raising funds from many unspecified persons.

" 2018, 98"

Around December 15, 2017, the Defendant: (a) the Cheongju-si** the Gu** * * * * * * * * * * * this victim’s money, raw material, is insufficient to provide the retired public official, etc. * * * to the retired public official, etc., with money; (b) he/she borrowed money to the victim and return it to the victim for five days. However, even if the Defendant borrowed money from the victim, he/she did not have the intent or ability to pay it. The Defendant was given KRW 130 million from the bank to cash and check; (c) on December 20, 2017, he/she received KRW 40 million from the victim to the account under the name of the Defendant; and (d) on December 20, 2017, he/she received KRW 17 million from the victim to the account under the name of the Defendant.

As such, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received a total of KRW 180 million from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

"2018 Gohap35, 1. Part of the defendant's legal statement

1. Witness***** Each legal statement of*

1. Partial statement of each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant against the defendant;

1.**** each police protocol of statement about ***

1. An investigation report (a list of current status of changes in the value of gold within the last ten years); records on the current status of changes in the value of gold during the last ten years; records on the current status of changes in the market value; records of each financial transaction account; records on the withdrawal of deposits from victims; and reports on the investigation (an investigation into the place of using investment funds remitted by victims);

" 2018, 98"

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. This* Protocol of Police Statements against *

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a complaint, a detailed statement of deposit transactions, and a loan certificate;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act [Attachment Table (1) to (9) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act [the fraud of victims listed in [Attachment Table (1) to (9) and each victim], Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act [Attachment Table (10 to (66) of the List of Crimes, Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act [the victims listed in [Attachment Table (10 to (66) of the List of Crimes, and Article 347(1) of the Attached Table of Crimes (2) of the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, victims and ****The other victims are each victims respectively, respectively,], Article 6(1) and Article 3(1) of the Act on the

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act / [Article 50 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) concerning the Victim Kim Man-be who has the largest punishment and criminal penalty]

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

********* There has been no intention to acquire an investment money with respect to a transaction before October 2017.

2. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, even though the defendant did not have the intent or ability to guarantee the principal of the investment to the victims or to pay the victims a normal profit from the market price of gold transactions at the time and time stated in this part of the facts charged, it is determined that the defendant had the intention to deceiving the victims as if he had such ability, and to receive the investment money, it is determined that the defendant and the defense counsel did not accept this part of the argument.

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years nor more than 45 years;

2. Scope of recommending sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than four years; and

(a) Basic crime: Each violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), each fraud [type of fraud], and each fraud [type of fraud].

-it has been committed for an unspecified or large number of unspecified victims or repeatedly over a considerable period of time;

shall not cause serious damage to the victim;

- the victim is also reasonably responsible for the occurrence of the offence or the expansion of damage;

[Scope of Recommendation] 4 years 1) to 9 years (aggravating area)

B. The first concurrent crime: the sentencing criteria are not set for a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission.

(c) Application of standards for handling multiple crimes: not less than four years of imprisonment (inasmuch as the relationship of concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with a crime for which no sentencing criteria are set, only the lower limit of the recommended sentences of crimes for which sentencing criteria are set shall be considered

3. The crime of this case committed by the sentence decision was committed by the Defendant by deceiving about about 69 victims about 5 years, by deceiving them and receiving them without delay in the process. In light of the criminal law and the amount of damage, it is not very good to commit the crime. The Defendant, based on the community trust that his father has operated a bank for about 30 years, took the appearance that he purchased the money with the victims’ investment funds, and actually, made the victims believe that the means of this investment are in vain stable, by paying the profits in a fixed way to prevent the return, and by paying the profits actually, it continued to increase the number of new victims by systematic and phased methods, such as inviting investors through the middle recruitment policy and paying the fees to the victims for this, which eventually led to a serious damage to the victims.

Most victims have lost, or invested in, a small amount of money that was difficult to make all the lives, such as the purchase fund of a house and retirement pay, beyond the end of the Defendant’s false statement, and caused physical and mental damage to a crowken, such as loss of the base of life or failure of the family. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not take measures for recovery of particular damage to the victims, and did not receive a letter from the victims. The victims want to have a heavy mental and economic suffering resulting from the Defendant’s crime and the Defendant’s severe punishment.

Part of the damage amount of this case was paid to the victims as earnings, and in the case of some victims who have traded for a long time with the defendant, it seems that the actual amount of profit does not reach the amount of damage. However, the payment of the above profits was used as a means of deception to increase investors by providing stable trust, and in the case of a large number of victims who started a transaction with the defendant in the second half of 2017, immediately before the defendant's default, they were rarely paid earnings, and even according to the defendant's assertion, the damage amounting to eight billion won has not yet been recovered, and the defendant must still be punished for severe punishment corresponding thereto.

Although the Defendant had been engaged in normal investment transactions with the victims until October 2017, the Defendant denied part of the crime due to a defense that was difficult to understand that it was caused to such crimes due to difficult circumstances. The cause and result resulting in the crime are also considered to the intermediate recruitment policies that paid fees for their interests and judgments. Thus, it is doubtful whether the instant crime is genuine, and whether the victims have the mind to reply to the victims.

However, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant has led to the confession of part of the crime, that the defendant is the first offender who has no record of punishment prior to the instant case, and that the victims trust the defendant in a short term without careful judgment for the purpose of gaining high profits, and that the damage has been expanded.

In addition to the various circumstances against the above defendant, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive

Judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Cho Jong-woo

Judges Swelves

1) 1/3 of the minimum sentence shall be mitigated, as a result of the combination of identical competitions increases in one-stage category.